8:50

Three members take their place in front of the room to consider the exact wording of the council's upcoming referendum on the academic calendar.

The referendum will ask students whether they would approve of starting the school year three weeks earlier and shorten reading period to one week, or shorten exam period to one week or shorten both to a week and a half. In addition to this barrage of choices, representatives propose amending the referendum to include the option of starting school two weeks early and limiting both reading and exam period to a week apiece. Council members seem to understand the options.

The amendment to give students an even more complicated list of choices for the referendum passes. A lengthy debate begins, during which several amendments are proposed, including making the last question the first one and eliminating altogether one or more of the questions. Meanwhile, at 8:58 p.m., one representative calls for a quorum check, suspicious that more than half of the council has gone home.

But council members have stuck it out. The meeting must go on.

The council, at 9 p.m. proceeds to extend debate on the referendum's wording by five minutes. At 9:07 p.m., the student government again extends debate by five minutes. The council finally agrees on a suitable version of the referendum, moving on to other business under the illusion that debate on the referendum is closed for the evening.

9:16

Mary E. Sarotte '88, chairman of the finance committee, requests a suspension in the rules of the council bylaws. In anticipation of next week's grants meeting, she asks that her committee not be required to distribute grants reports in advance.

She explains that the reports "got lost" in the past when delegates to the council were careless with the important documents. Under the suspension, council members will receive the reports upon arrival at next week's meeting. The measure passes.

9:19

Prior to introducing a report on the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR), delegate Melendez presents fascinated council members with a Nutshell History of the disciplinary body, from its 1969 induction to its revival last spring. Former chairman Melendez delivers the entire 17-year history in less than five minutes.

The report suggests creating a Judiciary Board which would replace the CRR, take over almost all of the Administrative Board's powers, allow students open hearings upon request, treat disciplinary cases of student, faculty and administrators on an equal basis, and bring credibility, student participation and due process to Harvard's disciplinary system, according to the report's authors.

"The odds are very small that this is going to be implemented," comments delegate Weissman.

Council members then bring up major concerns with the framework of this Judiciary Board, despite the fact that the proposal was brought up a week ago in council meeting and has been in the planning stages for weeks. Chairman Offutt, concerned with the ticking of the clock, bids them hold off until this week's meeting of the Committee on the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CCRR).

The council, which was discussing the committee on the committee's report only in principle, will vote on adoption of the report at the next meeting of the undergraduate community's representative body.